(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단5202700

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단5202700

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C and D, a licensed real estate agent, regarding the E-V Nos. 3502 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the following terms (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

-Deposit 130,00,000, down payment 10,000,000 (contractual payment) and the balance 120,000,000 (payment on May 16, 2014) - If a lessor or lessee has defaulted on the terms of this contract, the other party may give written peremptory notice to the defaulted person and rescind the contract.

In addition, the parties to the contract may claim damages from the other party due to the cancellation of the contract respectively, and the contract deposit shall be considered as compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.

- Bank loans of 356,800,000 won (the maximum amount of bonds 428,160,000 won) on the basis of the certificate registered as of the date of the contract.

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant B the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 on the day of the instant lease agreement.

C. In order to pay the deposit under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff consulted F with the lending consultant, who was known through Defendant C and D. However, since it was found impossible to lend the loan after the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the loan from the National Bank, and the remainder of the deposit was not paid to Defendant B.

The defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association issued a certificate of mutual aid to guarantee the liability of licensed real estate agents for damages.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's primary claim

A. Although Defendant B, as a lessor, consented to the Plaintiff’s lease loan, Defendant B established a collateral security exceeding the market price of the apartment of this case. Therefore, Defendant B is liable for nonperformance of the Plaintiff’s lease loan.

And Defendant B.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2021.02.04 2019가단118926

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.12.03 2015가단205443

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.08.08 2017가단62387

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.01.08 2019가단106305